My formula for who will win in 2012

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter jduster
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Formula
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around predictions and theories regarding the outcome of the 2012 presidential election, focusing on factors such as the economy, unemployment rates, candidate characteristics, and media influence. Participants explore various models and hypotheses related to electoral outcomes, with an emphasis on the impact of economic conditions and candidate traits.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant theorizes that the incumbent's re-election depends heavily on the state of the economy, citing historical examples to support this view.
  • Another participant refines this idea by suggesting that the unemployment rate specifically is a critical factor, proposing thresholds for Obama's potential success or failure.
  • A different viewpoint emphasizes that substantive issues like jobs and foreign policy could lead to Obama's loss, despite the economy's state, depending on the Republican candidate's qualities.
  • One participant introduces the notion that the specific Republican candidate and media bias could significantly influence the election outcome, particularly if candidates like Palin or Bachman are involved.
  • Another participant provocatively claims that Obama embodies characteristics typically associated with Republican candidates, citing various policies and actions that align with Republican ideals.
  • A later reply discusses psychological traits of successful presidential candidates, suggesting that creativity in difficult situations may be a distinguishing factor, and critiques the perceived normalcy of Republican candidates.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views with no clear consensus on the primary factors influencing the election outcome. Multiple competing theories regarding the economy, candidate characteristics, and media influence remain unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants' arguments rely on various assumptions about economic indicators, candidate traits, and media behavior, which are not universally agreed upon. The discussion reflects differing interpretations of historical electoral outcomes and their relevance to the current political landscape.

jduster
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Many political analysts over-analyze the presidential election process.

It's not even about a nation-wide shift to the left or right.

Republicans vote Republican. Democrats vote Democrat. Independents vote for whoever is fashionable, so elections are heavily dependent on Independents.

My theory:
1. If the economy is doing well, the incumbent (or his successor in his party) is elected.
2. If the economy is not doing well, the challenger of the opposite party is elected.

1956 - Good economy, Eisenhower (R) re-elected.
1960 - Economic slowdown, Kennedy (D) elected
1964 - Economic progress, Kennedy successor Johnson (D) elected
1968 - Johnson doesn't run, Nixon (R) elected
1972 - Economy is doing well, Nixon (R) re-elected
1976 - Economy is slowing down, Ford (R) loses to Carter (D).
1980 - Stagflation. Carter (D) loses to Reagan (R).
1984 - Economy recovers. Reagan (R) wins by landslide.
1988 - Economy still booming. Reagan successor Bush (R) elected.
1992 - Economic difficulty. Bush (R) loses to Clinton (D).
1996 - Economy booming. Clinton (D) re-elected.
2000 - Economy booming. Gore (D) won the popular vote.
2004 - Economy recovers from a recession. Bush (R) re-elected.
2008 - Economic meltdown. McCain (R) loses to Obama (D).

(The charisma theory, that the most charismatic candidate wins holds some weight as Kennedy beat Nixon, Nixon avoided debates in his elections as he was uncharismatic, Reagan/Clinton were charismatic, while Ford/Bush who lost were not. But there are some problems with that. Charisma is dependent on a good economy. Bush was not charismatic, but he didn't need it to win in 2004. Carter was charismatic until stagflation. Reagan wasn't very charismatic in 1983 when there was long unemployment lines. Obama was very charismatic as a challenger in a recession, now that he is president during a bad economy, his charisma is dimming.)

My prediction: If economy is still bad in 2012, Obama loses. If economy improves, Obama is re-elected.

This is not the only reason, but it is a factor (and often in a big one) in all elections in our era.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm thinking more specific than just "the economy", to the unemployment rate. If it's still above 9%, Obama loses. If it improves to get below 8.5%, he wins. Just my opinion/best guess.
 
On the subject of substantive issues - jobs, GITMO, foreign policy - it's over, Obama loses. What remains are personal and tactical issues over which the Republican candidate could still lose. The Harry Reid vs Sharon Angle campaign is a good example. Reid's state is an absolute disaster economically - 14% unemployment, highest foreclosure rate in the country, and Reid had his "the war is lost" statement was following him around in a state w/ a significant military population and three bases. Yet Angle's inexperience and brashness gave Reid the ammunition to paint her as an extremist.
 
I think there are 2 other variables; 1.) the specific Republican candidate, and 2.) the media's level of commitment to re-elect their favorite President - the variable to number 2 will be the identity of the Republican candidate.

One certainty - if Palin or Bachman are on the ticket - the media will go bankrupt to prevent them from winning.:smile:
 
Quite honestly I've always thought Obama is the best Republican candidate the Republicans have

I mean seriously:

You are still in Iraq and Afghanistan
You still have the Patriot Act and Gautonimo Bay
Reformed health care is very similar to Mitt's plan
No banking reform
His economic advisors are pretty well the same dudes as the ones who got you into your current mess
Extended Bush tax cuts

Did I miss anything?

Obama is the perfect Republican.
 
Jon Stewart interviewed an author last evening (a Tuft's prof) that discussed results of his research on the ideal Presidential candidate. He indicated that people, like FDR, who are mildly Manic are very creative in difficult situations and when Depressed are quite sympathetic. He said "normal" people don't have these abilities.

When Stewart asked him which Republican candidate was 'creative enough' to be President - he said they were all too normal.

I'm not "creative enough" to make this stuff up - really!
 

Similar threads

News Does a Strong Economy Guarantee a President's Re-Election?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
News Did Scott Brown's Win Signal a Shift in American Political Landscape?
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
9K
News Spin and the Coming Election: The Art of Cherry-Picking Facts
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
8K
Who are some notable exceptions in your list?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
9K
News Was the 2008 election a repudiation of Bush and the Republican Party?
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
5K
News Alternatives to First-Past-The-Post Voting
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
14K
News Charisma in Presidential Politics (esp. Nixon)
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
News Bush's Re-Election Bid Looking Good: A Look at the Numbers
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
7K
News How do deregulation policies fit into a free market system?
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
8K
News Is the Middle Class Truly Disappearing?
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
6K